Perfect Mental Control for Perfect Sight

#**149** 09-19-2007, 03:41 PM

- quote -

> Therefore, when somebody has no
> information, they go in my killfile.

In that case why haven't you kill-filed: yourself?

#**148** 09-19-2007, 01:45 AM

In article <1189437040.534508.133990[at]r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> ,
"Dr. Leukoma" <drg[at]leukoma.com> wrote:

- quote -

> On Sep 10, 9:14 am, Zetsu <absolutelyinvinci...[at]hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi,
> > > As for me I am not going to kill-file anybody ever because I think
> > that all messages deserve to be read no matter who the writer is. Also
> > I Enjoy reading the messages, even if they are bad to me. But why
> > don't you practice what you preach, in fact why are you even still
> > reading what I post then. That means you are the liar and the
> > hypocrite so you should go away because you are silly.
> Ahahaha. If silliness were a crime, you would bave been imprisoned by
> now.

I read a post on another group. Most people have a tv. It has a
channel selector and an "off" switch. You can only watch one channel at
a time, with some exceptions. In any case, there aren't enough hours in
a day to watch every channel. My newserver has 30444 groups. I don't
read them all. I use a killfile because I simply can't read all the
posts on the groups that I do read. Therefore, when somebody has no
information, they go in my killfile.

#**147** 09-19-2007, 01:10 AM

In article <1189376994.755293.156950[at]o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com> ,
andrewedwardjudd[at]hotmail.com wrote:

- quote -

> At some point you might get bored with this behaviour

It's called a killfile. Welcome to it.

#**146** 09-19-2007, 12:59 AM

In article <1189207441.657260.88570[at]d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> ,
andrewedwardjudd[at]hotmail.com wrote:

- quote -

> > Total nonsense.
> > Dr G
> When a person answers me with "total nonesense" not once but 3 times
> to different things i say then i know that person is not at all
> interested in what i have to say.

If he wasn't interested, why would he respond to you?

- quote -

> You just prefer your opinion to what can be observed via scientific
> means.

Where "science" is defined as whatever total nonsense floats into your
brain.

#**145** 09-11-2007, 11:26 PM

<andrewedwardjudd[at]hotmail.com> wrote

- quote -

> I would guess you agree with me.

Of course you're right. You know three or four people whose astigmatism
"disappeared" so that MUST be how it works.

I have the disadvantage of actually measuring several thousand over twenty
years. Please pardon me - I was misled by those articles that described
astigmatism as relatively stable, gradually increasing on average throughout
life.

That can't be true. You must be right.

I also read that hispanics have more astigmatism and blacks have less
myopia. Now you'll tell us Andrew's explanation for THAT. Or you simply
won't believe it.

-MT

#**144** 09-11-2007, 09:28 PM

On Sep 12, 7:06 am, "Mike Tyner" <mty...[at]mindspring.com> wrote:
- quote -

> <andrewedwardj...[at]hotmail.com> wrote
> > Well astigmatism obviously does dissapear. Or are you disputing
> > that?
> Oh, of course. Silly me. I'm totally wrong. It disappears all the time.
> -MT

Mike

Dont be silly please.

I did not say all of the time.

I would guess you agree with me.

Thems the breaks

Andrew

#**143** 09-11-2007, 07:06 PM

<andrewedwardjudd[at]hotmail.com> wrote

- quote -

> Well astigmatism obviously does dissapear. Or are you disputing
> that?

Oh, of course. Silly me. I'm totally wrong. It disappears all the time.

-MT

#**142** 09-11-2007, 05:15 PM

On Sep 11, 10:28 am, andrewedwardj...[at]hotmail.com wrote:

- quote -

> Well astigmatism obviously does dissapear. Or are you disputing
> that?
> I know plenty of people who were astigmatic and then are not
> astigmatic as measured by professional examiners

C'mon, Mike. Please answer this joker so he can feel validated. He's
craving your attention, again.

#**141** 09-11-2007, 03:28 PM

On Sep 12, 12:12 am, "Mike Tyner" <mty...[at]mindspring.com> wrote:
- quote -

> <andrewedwardj...[at]hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > Instead your response is to simply reject it before you even know
> > about it.
> > What kind of science is that?
> The kind that explains how astigmatism disappears. But first you've got to
> see astigmatism disappear.
> -MT

Well astigmatism obviously does dissapear. Or are you disputing
that?

I know plenty of people who were astigmatic and then are not
astigmatic as measured by professional examiners

#**140** 09-11-2007, 12:12 PM

<andrewedwardjudd[at]hotmail.com> wrote in message

- quote -

> Instead your response is to simply reject it before you even know
> about it.
> What kind of science is that?

The kind that explains how astigmatism disappears. But first you've got to
see astigmatism disappear.

-MT

Similar Threads
Thread	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Perfect Sight a matter of spontaneous understanding g.gatti@agora.it: Please, note that Perfect Sight has nothing to do with PLUS LENSES or any other type of lenses usage. The theory which our friend Otis - an old...	Vision	21	02-09-2005 08:12 PM
Perfect Sight a matter of spontaneous undestanding g.gatti@agora.it: Now I am talking with a lady, 60 years old, who knew nothing about Bates treatments, and once I discovered that she wore contacts for myopic...	Vision	54	02-09-2005 08:35 AM
"Perfect Sight Society" Rishigg: I would like to start up a world-wide league just like Bates did with his own "Better Eyesight League" so that all of us who are treating ourselves...	Vision	1	07-30-2003 07:05 PM

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode